ML19211A974
| ML19211A974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1979 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912210431 | |
| Download: ML19211A974 (7) | |
Text
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 12/17/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
)
Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT
)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
NRC STAFF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AGAINST INTERVENORS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, ET AL, BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION On November 9, 1979 the NRC Staff filed its "First Set of.., Interrogatories to Friends of the Earth (F0E)." Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 12.740(b), responses would have been due on November 28, 1979, that date was, however, extended to December 5, 1979 by virtue of agreement between counsel for F0E and for the Staff. On December 7, 1979 F0E served its untimely " Answers of Petitioners, Friends of the Earth, to First Set of Staff Interrogatories." Under 10 C.F.R.
12.740(f) the requesting party may move the Licensing Board, within 10 days after the date of the response, for an order compelling response to its interroga-tories.
The Staff hereby moves the Licensing Board for an order compelling Intervenors F0E, et al to respond to its first set of interrogatories, as speci-fied below.
ARGUMENT In its " Motion for An Order Compelling Discovery Against Intervenors'Hursh-Castro," filed this date, the Staff addressed the assertion of Messrs Hursh 1637 2D N
g 19ns10
and Castro that they did not have an obligation to respond to discovery because the burden of proof in this proceeding is on the Licensee and the Staff.
(In fact, the Licensing Board has ruled that the burden of proof is on the Licensee, but not on the Staff. Prehearing Conference Order, August 3, 1979 at 2.) F0E has interposed a similar objection to Interroga-tories 3 and 5.
F0E Contention III(c) asserts The NRC orders in issue do not reasonably assure adequate safety because there is no reasonable time for implementation of the long-term mcdifications established in the Commission orders.
In Interrogatory 3.A the Staff asked F0E to state what it believed would be a reasonable time for implementation of each of the long-term modifications identified in the Commission's May 7, 1979 order and the bases for that schedule. F0E objected that "it is not the obligation of intervenors to provide criteria for a schedule of completion of modifications, nor the 1/
schedule itself."- (p. 3). F0E's contention expressly asserts, however, that the Commission's orders in this proceeding are deficient because there is no " reasonable time" established for the long-term modifications.
In the face of that express assertion, it is hardly unfair for the Staff to probe F0E's views on what would constitute a " reasonable" schedule. F0E's objection is analogous to the Hursh-Castro argument that once an intervenor has identified
_1f Although F0E did go on the coment further, its comments did not-identify the schedule it believed appropriate nor the reasons therefore.
9 1637~229
. its areas of concern, the entire burden shifts to the Licensee and Staff to demonstrate that those concerns are unfounded and that, therefore, an intervenor does not have to respond to discovery on its contentions. As noted in our response to Messrs Hursh and Castro, as long as discovery is on matters " relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding" and limited to "those matters in controversy", it is proper.
Interrogatory 3 is directly related to F0E Contention III(c) and is, therefore, proper. F0E should be required to respond to Interrogatory 3.
Interrogatory 5 relates to F0E Contention III(e) which states:
The NRC orders in issue do not reasonably assure adequate safety because no procedures exist or have been taken for the determination of the adequacy of operator competence.
The Staff asked F0E to describe various terms used in Contention III(c), namely
" operator," " competence," and " procedures." The Staff also asked F0E to:
- 1) state the reasons, in light of applicable Commission regulations, for its assertion that "no procedures exist or have been taken for the determination of the adequacy of operator competence" and 2) identify those " procedures" not taken which F0E contends would lead to a level of adequate safety at Rancho Seco.
F0E objects-2/
to answering this interrogatory on the ground that:
absent a clear enunciation by the NRC of standards, criteria and procedures to determine operator competence,
-2/ F0E also states that it cannot answer this interrogatory until discovery is completed. We deal with this assertion later in this motion.
1637 230
. the intervenors are under no obligations to propose such standards, criteria, or procedures.
In view of the fact that F0E has, however, raised the issue of whether procedures have been applied to determine the competence of Rancho Seco operators, it is not unreasonable to ask F0E to:
- 1) define its terms, 2) state the reasons for its assertion, and 3) identify procedures which it believes should, but have not been, instituted. The questions posed are directly related to Contention III(e) and are proper. F0E should, therefore, be required to respond to Interrogatory 5.
Although not styled an " objection," F0E asserts in response to Interrogatories 4 and 5 that it cannot answer until discovery has been completed. The nature of Interrogatory 5 has already been described, above.
Interrogatory 4 relates to Contention III(d) which states The NRC orders in issue do not reasonably assure adequate safety because no procedures have been taken to assure facility management competence.
The Staff asked F0E to describe what it meant by the terms " facility management competence,"--3/
" competence," and " procedures." The Staff (as it did in Interroga-tory 5) also asked F0E to: 1) state why, in view of applicable Commission regula-tions, F0E asserts that "no procedures have been taken to assure facility manage-ment competence" and 2) identify those procedures which F0E contends have not been, but should be, taken to assure an adequate level of safety at the Rancho 3/ F0E has provided at least some answer to this part of Interrogatory 4.A.
We are pursuing clarification of that answer through further interrogat6 ries.
~
1637'231
Seco facility. The Staff is at a complete loss to understand why F0E cannot respond to these interrogatories without the benefit of responses to discovery.
F0E, as the author of its contentions, should be required at this time to
- 1) describe what it meant by the terms it used 2) state the reasons for its assertions, and 3) state its beliefs as to what is required to assure an adequate level of safety. Responses to Interrogatories 4 and 5 should, there-fore, be required.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully move the Licensing Board for an order compelling Intervenors F0E, g al. to respond to Interrogatories 3, 4, and 5.
Respectfully submitted, g
Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of December, 1979.
b 1637 232
UNITED STATES OF AtiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AGAINST INTER'JENORS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, ET AL.," in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 17th day of December, 1979:
- Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.,. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Gary Hursh, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 520 Capitol Mall Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95814
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard D. Castro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2231 K Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Sacramento, California 95816
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon James S. Reed, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael H. Remy, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regui' tory Commission Reed, Samuel & Remy Washington, D.C.
i ;55 717 K Street, Suite 405 Sacramento, California 95814 David S. Kaplan, Esq.
General Counsel Christopher Ellison, Esq.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Dian Grueneich, Esq.
P. O.
Box 15830 California Energy Commission Sacramento, California 95813 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 16 # 233
- Atomic Safety and Licensin9 Mr. Michael R. Eaton Board Panel Energy Issues Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conciission Sierra Club Legislative Office Washington, D.C.
20555 1107 9 Street, Room 1020 Sacramento, California 95814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C.
20555 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Stegnen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff 1637 234
...